Re: Can we go beyond the standard to make Postgres radically better?
| От | Guyren Howe |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Can we go beyond the standard to make Postgres radically better? |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | 7523152a-fa84-4794-898d-bc50f8d2c896@Spark обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Can we go beyond the standard to make Postgres radically better? (Raymond Brinzer <ray.brinzer@gmail.com>) |
| Ответы |
Re: Can we go beyond the standard to make Postgres radically better?
|
| Список | pgsql-general |
I’m not proposing some crackpot half-baked idea here. There are well-defined and researched alternatives to SQL.
The most fully-developed you-can-use-today offering is Datomic, which uses Datalog as its query language. If you know Prolog, and how that is kind of database-like, Datomic is pretty much a variant of Prolog.
https://www.datomic.com
I don’t use it because it’s closed source.
The most fully-developed you-can-use-today offering is Datomic, which uses Datalog as its query language. If you know Prolog, and how that is kind of database-like, Datomic is pretty much a variant of Prolog.
https://www.datomic.com
I don’t use it because it’s closed source.
On Feb 10, 2022, 21:15 -0800, Raymond Brinzer <ray.brinzer@gmail.com>, wrote:
--On Thu, Feb 10, 2022 at 11:56 PM Guyren Howe <guyren@gmail.com> wrote:I feel like anyone who is defending SQL here isn’t aware of how much better the alternatives are, and how bad SQL really is.Have you written a language description we can read and talk about?Ray Brinzer
В списке pgsql-general по дате отправления: